Policies on doctors' declaration of interests in medical organisations: a thematic analysis.

OBJECTIVES: There has been growing concern about doctors' conflicts of interests (COIs) but it is unclear what processes and tools exist to enable the consistent declaration and management of such interests. This study mapped existing policies across a variety of organisations and settings to better understand the degree of variation and identify opportunities for improvement. DESIGN: Thematic analysis. SETTING: We studied the COI policies of 31 UK and international organisations which set or influence professional standards or engage doctors in healthcare commissioning and provision settings. PARTICIPANTS: 31 UK and international organisations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Organisational policy similarities and differences. RESULTS: Most policies (29/31) referred to the need for individuals to apply judgement when deciding whether an interest is a conflict, with just over half (18/31) advocating a low threshold. Policies differed on the perception of frequency of COI, the timings of declarations, the type of interests that needed to be declared, and how COI and policy breaches should be managed. Just 14/31 policies stated a duty to report concerns in relation to COI. Only 18/31 policies advised COI would be published, while three stated that any disclosures would remain confidential. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of organisational policies revealed wide variation in what interests should be declared, when and how. This variation suggests that the current system may not be adequate to maintain a high level of professional integrity in all settings and that there is a need for better standardisation that reduces the risk of errors while addressing the needs of doctors, organisations and the public.

Complex and alternate consent pathways in clinical trials: methodological and ethical challenges encountered by underserved groups and a call to action.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent is considered a fundamental requirement for participation in trials, yet obtaining consent is challenging in a number of populations and settings. This may be due to participants having communication or other disabilities, their capacity to consent fluctuates or they lack capacity, or in emergency situations where their medical condition or the urgent nature of the treatment precludes seeking consent from either the participant or a representative. These challenges, and the subsequent complexity of designing and conducting trials where alternative consent pathways are required, contribute to these populations being underserved in research. Recognising and addressing these challenges is essential to support trials involving these populations and ensure that they have an equitable opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, research. Given the complex nature of these challenges, which are encountered by both adults and children, a cross-disciplinary approach is required. DISCUSSION: A UK-wide collaboration, a sub-group of the Trial Conduct Working Group in the MRC-NIHR Trial Methodology Research Partnership, was formed to collectively address these challenges. Members are drawn from disciplines including bioethics, qualitative research, trials methodology, healthcare professions, and social sciences. This commentary draws on our collective expertise to identify key populations where particular methodological and ethical challenges around consent are encountered, articulate the specific issues arising in each population, summarise ongoing and completed research, and identify targets for future research. Key populations include people with communication or other disabilities, people whose capacity to consent fluctuates, adults who lack the capacity to consent, and adults and children in emergency and urgent care settings. Work is ongoing by the sub-group to create a database of resources, to update NIHR guidance, and to develop proposals to address identified research gaps. CONCLUSION: Collaboration across disciplines, sectors, organisations, and countries is essential if the ethical and methodological challenges surrounding trials involving complex and alternate consent pathways are to be addressed. Explicating these challenges, sharing resources, and identifying gaps for future research is an essential first step. We hope that doing so will serve as a call to action for others seeking ways to address the current consent-based exclusion of underserved populations from trials.

Exploring physician approaches to conflict resolution in end-of-life decisions in the adult intensive care unit: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative research.

INTRODUCTION: Conflict is unfortunately well-documented in the adult intensive care unit (AICU). In the context of end-of-life (EOL) decision-making (ie, the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment), conflict commonly occurs when a consensus cannot be reached between the healthcare team and the patient's family on the 'best interests' of the critically ill, incapacitated patient. While existing literature has identified potential methods for conflict resolution, it is less clear how these approaches are perceived and used by stakeholders in the EOL decision-making process. We aim to explore this by systematically reviewing and synthesising the published evidence, which addresses the following research question: what does existing qualitative research reveal about physician approaches to addressing conflict arising in EOL decisions in the AICU? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Peer-reviewed qualitative studies (retrieved from MEDLINE, Project Muse, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and LILACS) examining conflict and dispute resolution in the context of EOL decisions in the AICU setting will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen either all or a randomly selected sample of studies, with a third reviewer independently screening studies of uncertain eligibility. The 'thematic synthesis' approach will be employed to analyse the resulting data. The quality of included papers will be assessed using the 2018 Mixed-Methods Assessment Tool. The 'Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research' approach will be used to assess our confidence in the findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review, as only published data will be included. We anticipate that the findings will be of interest to healthcare professionals working in AICUs and individuals working in bioethics, given the ethically contentious nature of EOL decisions. The findings will be disseminated at academic conferences and through open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021193769.

"A Question of Trust" and "a Leap of Faith"-Study Participants' Perspectives on Consent, Privacy, and Trust in Smart Home Research: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Ubiquitous, smart technology has the potential to assist humans in numerous ways, including with health and social care. COVID-19 has notably hastened the move to remotely delivering many health services. A variety of stakeholders are involved in the process of developing technology. Where stakeholders are research participants, this poses practical and ethical challenges, particularly if the research is conducted in people's homes. Researchers must observe prima facie ethical obligations linked to participants' interests in having their autonomy and privacy respected. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the ethical considerations around consent, privacy, anonymization, and data sharing with participants involved in SPHERE (Sensor Platform for Healthcare in a Residential Environment), a project for developing smart technology for monitoring health behaviors at home. Participants' unique insights from being part of this unusual experiment offer valuable perspectives on how to properly approach informed consent for similar smart home research in the future. METHODS: Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with 7 households (16 individual participants) recruited from SPHERE. Purposive sampling was used to invite participants from a range of household types and ages. Interviews were conducted in participants' homes or on-site at the University of Bristol. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Four themes were identified-motivation for participating; transparency, understanding, and consent; privacy, anonymity, and data use; and trust in research. Motivations to participate in SPHERE stemmed from an altruistic desire to support research directed toward the public good. Participants were satisfied with the consent process despite reporting some difficulties-recalling and understanding the information received, the timing and amount of information provision, and sometimes finding the information to be abstract. Participants were satisfied that privacy was assured and judged that the goals of the research compensated for threats to privacy. Participants trusted SPHERE. The factors that were relevant to developing and maintaining this trust were the trustworthiness of the research team, the provision of necessary information, participants' control over their participation, and positive prior experiences of research involvement. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers valuable insights into the perspectives of participants in smart home research on important ethical considerations around consent and privacy. The findings may have practical implications for future research regarding the types of information researchers should convey, the extent to which anonymity can be assured, and the long-term duty of care owed to the participants who place trust in researchers not only on the basis of this information but also because of their institutional affiliation. This study highlights important ethical implications. Although autonomy matters, trust appears to matter the most. Therefore, researchers should be alert to the need to foster and maintain trust, particularly as failing to do so might have deleterious effects on future research.

Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Despite its ubiquity in academic research, the phrase 'ethical challenge(s)' appears to lack an agreed definition. A lack of a definition risks introducing confusion or avoidable bias. Conceptual clarity is a key component of research, both theoretical and empirical. Using a rapid review methodology, we sought to review definitions of 'ethical challenge(s)' and closely related terms as used in current healthcare research literature. METHODS: Rapid review to identify peer-reviewed reports examining 'ethical challenge(s)' in any context, extracting data on definitions of 'ethical challenge(s)' in use, and synonymous use of closely related terms in the general manuscript text. Data were analysed using content analysis. Four databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher's Index, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched from April 2016 to April 2021. RESULTS: 393 records were screened, with 72 studies eligible and included: 53 empirical studies, 17 structured reviews and 2 review protocols. 12/72 (17%) contained an explicit definition of 'ethical challenge(s), two of which were shared, resulting in 11 unique definitions. Within these 11 definitions, four approaches were identified: definition through concepts; reference to moral conflict, moral uncertainty or difficult choices; definition by participants; and challenges linked to emotional or moral distress. Each definition contained one or more of these approaches, but none contained all four. 68/72 (94%) included studies used terms closely related to synonymously refer to 'ethical challenge(s)' within their manuscript text, with 32 different terms identified and between one and eight different terms mentioned per study. CONCLUSIONS: Only 12/72 studies contained an explicit definition of 'ethical challenge(s)', with significant variety in scope and complexity. This variation risks confusion and biasing data analysis and results, reducing confidence in research findings. Further work on establishing acceptable definitional content is needed to inform future bioethics research.

Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials: the ASPIRE project including expert workshop.

BACKGROUND: The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. OBJECTIVES: To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials. DESIGN: To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout. SETTING: A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. RESULTS: To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. CONCLUSIONS: The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial. LIMITATIONS: Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS. FUTURE WORK: Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space. FUNDING: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.

WHAT WAS THE RESEARCH ABOUT?: One of the best ways to prove that a new medicine really works is to use a scientific test called a 'placebo-controlled trial'. In this type of test, half of the participants are given a new pill and the other half are given a 'placebo', which is a dummy pill (usually a sugar pill) that is made to taste and look the same as the active pill, but has no active ingredients. The results are then compared. Just like medicines, new surgical procedures need to be tested to show that they are safe and benefit patients. Ideally, they would also be tested using the 'placebo-controlled trial' approach, but asking patients to have 'dummy' surgery is not the same as asking people to take a dummy pill. Placebo surgery raises lots of ethics questions and is controversial. As it is controversial, guidelines are needed to recommend when placebo surgery studies can be used (if at all) and what special considerations need to be taken into account. Our research team was commissioned to develop these guidelines. WHAT DID WE DO?: We summarised, to the best of our knowledge, all previous research that had used placebo surgery and reviewed all the ethics literature on this topic. We also looked at the latest scientific understanding of how placebos work. We then held a workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. This involved an international team of patients, surgeons, researchers, ethicists, psychologists, physiologists and funders. We published the guidelines [i.e. the ASPIRE (Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations) guidelines] in an influential medical journal and also wrote several other publications. This report provides a slightly more detailed version of our findings and recommendations. WHO WILL THIS HELP?: The guidelines will help researchers and doctors know when, and how, to best design placebo surgery studies in the future.

Genetic discrimination: introducing the Asian perspective to the debate.

Our article aims to provide a comprehensive portrayal of how seven Asian jurisdictions have sought to address the challenge of genetic discrimination (GD) by presenting an analysis of the relevant legislation, policies, and practices. Based on our findings, policy discussion and action on preventing or mitigating GD have been narrowly framed in terms of employment, insurance, disability, marriage, and family planning. Except for South Korea, none of the jurisdictions we examined has adopted specific legislation to prevent GD. However, for Asia to truly benefit from its recent scientific and technological progress in genomics, we highlight the need for these jurisdictions to engage more proactively with the challenges of GD through a coordinated regulatory and governance mechanism.

Principles for pandemics: COVID-19 and professional ethical guidance in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: During the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic, various professional ethical guidance was issued to (and for) health and social care professionals in England and Wales. Guidance can help to inform and support such professionals and their patients, clients and service users, but a plethora of guidance risked information overload, confusion, and inconsistency. METHODS: During the early months of the pandemic, we undertook a rapid review, asking: what are the principles adopted by professional ethical guidance in England and Wales for dealing with COVID-19? We undertook thematic content analysis of the 29 documents that met our inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The 29 documents captured 13 overlapping principles: respect, fairness, minimising harm, reciprocity, proportionality, flexibility, working together, inclusiveness, communication, transparency, reasonableness, responsibility, and accountability. CONCLUSIONS: We intend this attempt to collate and outline the prominent principles to be helpful, particularly, for healthcare practice during the COVID-19 pandemic and, hopefully, for future pandemic planning. We also offer some reflections on the guidance and the principles therein. After describing the principles, we reflect on some of the similarities and differences in the guidance, and the challenges associated not only with the specific guidance reviewed, but also with the nature and import of "professional ethical guidance".

What empirical research has been undertaken on the ethics of clinical research in India? A systematic scoping review and narrative synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: The post-2005 rise in clinical trials and clinical research conducted in India was accompanied by frequent reports of unethical practices, leading to a series of regulatory changes. We conducted a systematic scoping review to obtain an overview of empirical research pertaining to the ethics of clinical trials/research in India. METHODS: Our search strategy combined terms related to ethics/bioethics, informed consent, clinical trials/research and India, across nine databases, up to November 2019. Peer-reviewed research exploring ethical aspects of clinical trials/research in India with any stakeholder groups was included. We developed an evidence map, undertook a narrative synthesis and identified research gaps. A consultation exercise with stakeholders in India helped contextualise the review and identify additional research priorities. RESULTS: Titles/Abstracts of 9699 articles were screened, full text of 282 obtained and 80 were included. Research on the ethics of clinical trials/research covered a wide range of topics, often conducted with little to no funding. Studies predominantly examined what lay (patients/public) and professional participants (eg, healthcare staff/students/faculty) know about topics such as research ethics or understand from the information given to obtain their consent for research participation. Easily accessible groups, namely ethics committee members and healthcare students were frequently researched. Research gaps included developing a better understanding of the recruitment-informed consent process, including the doctor-patient interaction, in multiple contexts and exploring issues of equity and justice in clinical trials/research. CONCLUSION: The review demonstrates that while a wide range of topics have been studied in India, the focus is largely on assessing knowledge levels across different population groups. This is a useful starting point, but fundamental questions remain unanswered about informed consent processes and broader issues of inequity that pervade the clinical trials/research landscape. A priority-setting exercise and appropriate funding mechanisms to support researchers in India would help improve the clinical trials/research ecosystem.

Real-world ethics in palliative care: A systematic review of the ethical challenges reported by specialist palliative care practitioners in their clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Ethical issues arise daily in the delivery of palliative care. Despite much (largely theoretical) literature, evidence from specialist palliative care practitioners about day-to-day ethical challenges has not previously been synthesised. This evidence is crucial to inform education and adequately support staff. AIM: To synthesise the evidence regarding the ethical challenges which specialist palliative care practitioners encounter during clinical practice. DESIGN: Systematic review with narrative synthesis (PROSPERO registration CRD42018105365). Quality was dual-assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Tabulation, textural description, concept mapping and thematic synthesis were used to develop and present the narrative. DATA SOURCES: Seven databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher's Index, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS, Web of Science and CINAHL) were searched from inception to December 2019 without language limits. Eligible papers reported original research using inductive methods to describe practitioner-reported ethical challenges. RESULTS: A total of 8074 records were screened. Thirteen studies from nine countries were included. Challenges were organised into six themes: application of ethical principles; delivering clinical care; working with families; engaging with institutional structures and values; navigating societal values and expectations; philosophy of palliative care. Challenges related to specific scenarios/contexts rather than the application of general ethical principles, and occurred at all levels (bedside, institution, society, policy). CONCLUSION: Palliative care practitioners encounter a broad range of contextual ethical challenges, many of which are not represented in palliative care ethics training resources, for example, navigating institutional policies, resource allocation and inter-professional conflict. Findings have implications for supporting ethical practice and training practitioners. The lack of low- and middle- income country data needs addressing.

Protocol for a scoping review to understand what is known about how GPs make decisions with, for and on behalf of patients who lack capacity.

INTRODUCTION: General Practitioners (GPs) and allied healthcare professionals working in primary care are regularly required to make decisions with, for and on behalf of patients who lack capacity. In England and Wales, these decisions are made for incapacitated adult patients under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which primarily requires that decisions are made in the patient's 'best interests'. Regarding children, decisions are also made in their best interests but are done so under the Children Act 1989, which places paramount importance on the welfare of the child. Decisions for children are usually made by parents, but a GP may become involved if he or she feels a parent is not acting in the best interests of the child. Internationally, including elsewhere in the UK, different approaches are taken. We hypothesise that, despite the legislation and professional guidelines, there are many different approaches taken by GPs and allied healthcare professionals in England and Wales when making these complex decisions with, for and on behalf of patients who lack capacity. To better understand what is known about how these decisions are made, we plan to undertake a scoping review and directed content analysis of the literature. While the majority of decisions made in primary care are made by GPs, for completeness, this review will include all allied healthcare professionals working in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To ensure a wide breadth of literature is captured, a scoping review will be undertaken as described by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). A five-stage approach will be taken when conducting this review: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant papers; (3) study selection; (4) data extraction and (5) summarising and synthesis. The final stage will include a directed content analysis of the data to help establish the cross-cutting themes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The scoping review will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed publications. This scoping review is the first (mapping) phase in a proposed larger study to explore how GPs make decisions with, for and on behalf of those who lack capacity. Qualitative research with GPs, patients and their families will follow, before all the results are synthesised using an 'empirical bioethics' methodology.

Forgoing life-sustaining treatment - a comparative analysis of regulations in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and England.

BACKGROUND: Regulations on forgoing life-sustaining treatment (LST) have developed in Asian countries including Japan, Korea and Taiwan. However, other countries are relatively unaware of these due to the language barrier. This article aims to describe and compare the relevant regulatory frameworks, using the (more familiar) situation in England as a point of reference. We undertook literature reviews to ascertain the legal and regulatory positions on forgoing LST in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and England. MAIN TEXT: Findings from a literature review are first presented to describe the development of the regulatory frameworks surrounding the option of forgoing LST in each country. Based on the findings from the four countries, we suggest five ethically important points, reflection on which should help to inform the further development of regulatory frameworks concerning end-of-life care in these countries and beyond. There should be reflection on: (1) the definition of - and reasons for defining - the 'terminal stage' and associated criteria for making such judgements; Korea and Taiwan limit forgoing LST to patients in this stage, but there are risks associated with defining this too narrowly or broadly; (2) foregoing LST for patients who are not in this stage, as is allowed in Japan and England, because here too there are areas of controversy, including (in England) whether the law in this area does enough to respect the autonomy of (now) incapacitated patients; (3) whether 'foregoing' LST should encompass withholding and withdrawing treatment; this is also an ethically disputed area, particularly in the Asian countries we examine; (4) the family's role in end-of-life decision-making, particularly as, compared with England, the three Asian countries traditionally place a greater emphasis on families and communities than on individuals; and (5) decision-making with and for those incapacitated patients who lack families, surrogate decision-makers or ADs. CONCLUSION: Comparison of, and reflection on, the different legal positions that obtain in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and England should prove informative and we particularly invite reflection on five areas, in the hope the ensuing discussions will help to establish better end-of-life regulatory frameworks in these countries and elsewhere.

Bin it or pin it? Which professional ethical guidance on managing COVID-19 should I follow?

BACKGROUND: As the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic develops, healthcare professionals are looking for support with, and guidance to inform, the difficult decisions they face. In the (current) absence of an authoritative national steer in England, professional bodies and local organisations have been developing and disseminating their own ethical guidance. Questions inevitably arise, some of which are particularly pressing during the pandemic, as events are unfolding quickly and the field is becoming crowded. My central question here is: which professional ethical guidance should the professional follow? MAIN BODY: Adopting a working definition of "professional ethical guidance", I offer three domains for a healthcare professional to consider, and some associated questions to ask, when determining whether - in relation to any guidance document - they should "bin it or pin it". First, the professional should consider the source of the guidance: is the issuing body authoritative or, if not, at least sufficiently influential that its guidance should be followed? Second, the professional should consider the applicability of the guidance, ascertaining whether the guidance is available and, if so, whether it is pertinent. Pertinence has various dimensions, including whether the guidance applies to this professional, this patient and/or this setting, whether it is up-to-date, and whether the guidance addresses the situation the professional is facing. Third, the professional should consider the methodology and methods by which the guidance was produced. Although the substantive quality of the guidance is important, so too are the methods by which it was produced. Here, the professional should ask whether the guidance is sufficiently inclusive - in terms of who has prepared it and who contributed to its development - and whether it was rigorously developed, and thus utilised appropriate processes, principles and evidence. CONCLUSION: Asking and answering such questions may be challenging, particularly during a pandemic. Furthermore, guidance will not do all the work: professionals will still need to exercise their judgment in deciding what is best in the individual case, whether or not this concerns COVID-19. But such judgments can and should be informed (and constrained) by guidance, and hopefully these preliminary observations will provide some useful pointers for time-pressed professionals.

Considerations and methods for placebo controls in surgical trials (ASPIRE guidelines).

Placebo comparisons are increasingly being considered for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions. The aim of this Review is to provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials. A placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. This Review outlines what a placebo control entails and present understanding of this tool in the context of surgery. We consider when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable) in terms of ethical arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be done and interpreted. Use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided there is a strong scientific and ethical rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. This Review forms an outline for best practice and provides guidance, in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (known as ASPIRE) checklist, for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.